Author: Jonathan Neville

In the October 2018 General Conference, President Russell M. Nelson announced that “plans are now being made to renovate and update the Salt Lake Temple.”

This brings to mind the history of the Salt Lake Temple, which is a useful metaphor for understanding the serious problem that the book Saints has brought into public awareness.
_____

When the pioneers first began construction on the Salt Lake temple, they used a sandstone foundation. The foundation was covered up during the Utah War.

Foundation of the Salt Lake temple. Photo from Des News article

When the foundation was uncovered and exposed, workers discovered that some of the foundation stones had cracked.

They had a choice. They could either try to repair the cracks and hope the other foundation stones didn’t crack, or they could start over.

An article in the Deseret News explains:

On Jan. 1, 1862, [Brigham Young] announced that the inadequate foundation would be removed and replaced by one made entirely of granite. The footings would be 16 feet thick. ‘I want to see the Temple built in a manner that it will endure through the Millennium,’ he later declared. 

The work of rebuilding the foundation moved slowly, and the walls did not reach ground level until the end of the construction season in 1867, 14 years after the original cornerstones had been laid.”

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900018403/is-the-foundation-of-the-salt-lake-temple-composed-of-granite-or-sandstone.html
_____

We have a serious problem in Church history comparable to the cracked sandstone foundation. 

I think the only way to fix the cracked foundation is to tear out the entire sandstone of M2C ideology and rebuild the foundation with the granite of the teachings of the prophets. 

Here’s why.
_____

The book Saints exposed the problem when the editors intentionally censored the word Cumorah to accommodate modern ideas about Book of Mormon geography.

The editors went so far as to create a false “narrative present” to accommodate these modern ideas that repudiate the teachings of the prophets

In their defense, the editors were doing what they thought was right. They, like most Latter-day Saint intellectuals, live inside what I call the M2C bubble; i.e., they have all been trained at BYU and CES to think of the Book of Mormon in a limited geography Mesoamerican setting that requires the “real” Hill Cumorah to be in Southern Mexico. (M2C is the acronym for this Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory.)

Among these intellectuals, “everyone” knows M2C is “true.” No one questions it. “Everyone” also thinks the prophets and apostles are wrong about the New York Cumorah. “Everyone” knows Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were merely ignorant speculators who misled the Church about the New York Cumorah.

In my view, however, the prophets and apostles have been correct all along.

There is plenty of scientific evidence to corroborate the teachings of the prophets, but since when is that the basis for belief?

_____

It was one thing for people to speculate about different ideas. After all, the prophets always taught two things:

1. Cumorah is in New York.
2. We don’t know for sure where the other events took place.

The second teaching opened the door for all kinds of speculation. Now we have BYU and CES taking speculation to the ultimate level, going so far as to teach the Book of Mormon using a map of a fantasy world, comparable to Lord of the Rings.

But the first teaching grounded the Book of Mormon in the real world and should have constrained the speculation.

For example, the New York Cumorah is inconsistent with the BYU/CES fantasy maps. Those maps, therefore, teach students that the prophets are wrong.

The New York Cumorah is not inconsistent with a Mesoamerican, Heartland, or any other geography that accepts the teachings of the prophets.

But it is inconsistent with M2C, which explicitly repudiates the teachings of the prophets by claiming that Cumorah cannot be in New York.
_____

This is no small matter. It is a serious crack in the foundation.

People–especially the youth–realize that if the prophets and apostles were wrong about such a basic and oft-repeated teaching as the New York Cumorah, everything is open to question. There have been members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference who specifically re-affirmed the New York Cumorah, but the M2C intellectuals and their followers are teaching everyone that the prophets and apostles are wrong.

One alternative is to try to fix the cracks by censoring the word Cumorah and hoping no one will notice. That was the intent in Saints, but censorship has only brought more attention to the problem. In the days of the Internet, censorship is a foolish pursuit. Critics already know what’s going on, and the worst outcome is for our youth and new members to discover Cumorah first from the critics.

Another alternative is injecting the idea that the prophets were speaking only as men. Maybe, according to this “quick fix,” even President Benson was giving his own wrong opinion when he taught that

“The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them, otherwise the prophet is just giving his opinion—speaking as a man.” 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-ezra-taft-benson/chapter-11-follow-the-living-prophet?lang=eng

I don’t think the “opinions of men” quick-fix will endure.

The reason is obvious: it opens the door to repudiating the prophets whenever we disagree with them, just as President Benson pointed out.
_____

To repeat what I wrote at the beginning,

I think the only way to fix the cracked foundation is to tear out the entire M2C ideology and replace it with the granite of the teachings of the prophets. 

_____

For more historical background, the wikipedia article is a nice summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_Temple

The location for the temple was first marked by Mormon prophet Brigham Young, the second president of the church, on July 28, 1847, just four days after arriving in the Salt Lake Valley. In 1901 the apostle Anthon H. Lund recorded in his journal that “it is said” that Oliver Cowdery’s divining rod was used to locate the temple site.[20] The temple site was dedicated on February 14, 1853 by Heber C. Kimball. Groundbreaking ceremonies were presided over by Young, who laid the cornerstone on April 6 of that year.[21] The architect was Truman O. Angell, and the temple features both Gothic and Romanesque elements.

Sandstone was originally used for the foundation. During the Utah War, the foundation was buried and the lot made to look like a plowed field to prevent unwanted attention from federal troops. After tensions had eased in 1858 and work on the temple resumed, it was discovered that many of the foundation stones had cracked, making them unsuitable for use. Although not all of the sandstone was replaced, the inadequate sandstone was replaced. The walls are quartz monzonite (which has the appearance of granite) from Little Cottonwood Canyon, located twenty miles (32 km) southeast of the temple site. Oxen transported the quarried rock initially, but as the Transcontinental Railroad neared completion in 1869 the remaining stones were carried by rail at a much faster rate.[21]

The capstone—the granite sphere that holds the statue of the Angel Moroni—was laid on April 6, 1892, by means of an electric motor and switch operated by Wilford Woodruff, the church’s fourth president, thus completing work on the temple’s exterior. The Angel Moroni statue, standing 12.5 feet (3.8 m) tall, was placed on top of the capstone later the same day.[22] At the capstone ceremony it was proposed by Woodruff that the interior of the building be finished within one year, thus allowing the temple to be dedicated forty years to the day of its commencement. John R. Winder was instrumental in overseeing the completion of the interior on schedule; he would serve as a member of the temple presidency until his death in 1910. Woodruff dedicated the temple on April 6, 1893, exactly forty years after the cornerstone was laid.[21]

So we see

In their essay about the censorship of the word Cumorah in Saints, the editors claimed they “followed the lead” of Joseph Smith because his 1838 history did not mention Cumorah. He simply referred to it as a “hill of considerable size.”

At first glance, that might look like a plausible explanation. I suppose there are some readers of the essay who wouldn’t know any better.

But the editors of Saints know better.

Unlike Saints, the 1838 history was not written for members of the Church. It was written for the general public who were unfamiliar with the Church, had never read the Book of Mormon, and would have had no idea what Cumorah meant.

Explaining Cumorah would have required a long digression beyond the scope and intent of the 1838 history.

In other words, referring to Cumorah in the 1838 history would have been confusing to the intended nonmember audience.

By contrast, in his September 1842 letter to the Church published in the Oct. 1, 1842, Times and Seasons (now D&C 128), Joseph Smith referred to Cumorah without further explanation.

The reason: he was writing specifically to members of the Church who were all familiar with the New York Cumorah thanks to Letter VII, which had been republished many times, including in the Times and Seasons in 1841.

All members of the Church in Joseph Smith’s day knew Cumorah was in New York.

Saints creates a false historical “narrative present” because it portrays Joseph and his contemporaries as people who had never heard of Cumorah.
_____

Sadly, there’s another way to look at this.

Thanks to revisionist Church historians who are erasing the New York Cumorah everywhere they can, as they did in Saints, many of today’s members of the Church, like nonmembers and like the characters in Saints, don’t know what the prophets and apostles have taught about Cumorah.

Maybe the editors realized that most Church members today are ignorant of what the prophets and apostles have taught, so they figured referring to Cumorah would be confusing to readers.

There are two problems with that approach.

First, it’s not the explanation they gave. Instead, they said they censored Cumorah to “uphold” their idea of “neutrality” about Book of Mormon geography, a late 20th century concept created by M2C intellectuals.

Second, creating a false narrative present to keep modern Church members ignorant of the teachings of the prophets and apostles is the opposite of the declared objective of Saints.

If the purpose of Saints is to educate members of the Church about actual Church history, portraying characters in their authentic “narrative present,” then the censorship of Cumorah is inexcusable. The book should be revised ASAP.
_____

I discussed all of this on my SaintsReview blog. You can read that post here:

https://saintsreview.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-hill-in-new-york-problem.html
_____

That post also discusses a problem in the 1838 history that has caused confusion. That history originally said that the messenger who visited Joseph Smith in 1823 was Nephi, not Moroni. It was published this way in the Millennial Star and in the Times and Seasons.

The mistake has always been blamed on a “clerical error.”

That explanation doesn’t make sense, though. Why would Joseph’s clerks come up with the name Nephi in the first place? Would they have invented it out of thin air?

Furthermore, why would Joseph allow it to be published that way in the Times and Seasons if he was the actual editor of the paper? Why was it not corrected until after Joseph’s death?

It’s an interesting detail that also involves Saints, because the editors chose to include a phony story about Mary Whitmer being shown the plates by Moroni, even though she said the messenger was “Brother Nephi.”

I think they used the phony story for the same reason they censored Cumorah.

The media reported that the Hill Cumorah pageant will be discontinued after 2020.*

This is awesome news for those members of the Church who still believe what the prophets and apostles have taught about the New York Cumorah, for two reasons.

Hill Cumorah Pageant audience from lds.org

1. There will be record attendance at the pageant in 2019 and 2020.

This will bring tremendous attention throughout the Church to the Hill Cumorah, just when the issue has already been elevated in the minds of members of the Church due to the censorship of the word Cumorah in the book Saints.

This attention will lead members to search for the teachings of the prophets and apostles, information they never get at BYU, CES, or from the M2C citation cartel.

Photo of Cumorah pageant on lds.org Only M2C believers who reject the teachings of the prophets and apostles would think of constructing a Mayan pyramid in western New York.

2. The current iteration of the pageant teaches the Mesoamerican geography (M2C) and can’t be fixed without a complete revamping.

The stage itself is modeled after a Mayan pyramid. It would be an enormous expense to develop and build a new one.

To the left is a photo from lds.org showing the Mesoamerican setting.

The cancellation of this M2C pageant is long overdue.


I’ve been told that President Boyd K. Packer used to say the Church moves at two speeds: slowly and not at all. In that context, the elimination of these M2C pageants has been extremely rapid.
_____

Photo of Manti pageant from DesNews link in footnotes

The Manti pageant also teaches M2C.

The thousands of attendees at these pageants have had M2C imprinted on their minds, many of them starting from childhood.

The pageant creators, directors, and participants have no idea they are teaching their audiences that the prophets and apostles are wrong.

Thanks to the efforts of M2C intellectuals and educators at BYU and CES, few members of the Church today know what the prophets and apostles have taught about Cumorah.

Fortunately, that is changing.

And eliminating these pageants will help turn the tide away from M2C.
_____

Hill Cumorah Visitors Center that never explains why this “hill in New York” is named Cumorah

I’ve noted before that the Hill Cumorah Visitors Center in New York teaches visitors that the “real” Cumorah is in Mesoamerica.

This has proven very confusing to visitors–and that’s without even knowing what the prophets and apostles have taught.

Letter VII explains that Cumorah is in New York

The Visitors Center doesn’t even have a display about the Church’s acquisition of the Hill Cumorah and the General Conference session that followed, featuring President Ivins’ important talk about the importance of Cumorah both in Church history and in the future.

Imagine how much more faith-affirming the Hill Cumorah Visitors Center would be if it informed visitors about what the prophets and apostles have actually taught about the Hill Cumorah.

President Romney speaking about the New York Cumorah with four Presidents of the Church in attendance

A display on Letter VII would be a great start.

It could feature the original publication of Letter VII in the Messenger and Advocate. It could include the republications of Letter VII in the Times and Seasons, Millennial Star, Gospel Reflector, The Prophet, the special British pamphlet, and the Improvement Era.

Then it could reproduce all the other teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah. They could have a video replaying President Romney’s talk, “America’s Destiny.”
_____

Oliver Cowdery memorial, 1 mile north of the Hill Cumorah

Last year, we experimented with an Oliver Cowdery Memorial located one mile north of the Hill Cumorah, on the main road.

Thousands of people have visited the memorial, where they learn what the prophets and apostles have taught about the New York Cumorah. They have learned about Letter VII and how Cumorah fits within a possible North American setting.

We also offered nightly lectures on Church history for attendees at the pageant. Among the attendees were local pastors who had been among the anti-Mormon protesters at the pageant. It was great to get to know them and educate them about what we really believe, as opposed to what they’ve been taught to believe.

Stay tuned for upcoming events in Palmyra.
_____
* E.g. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900039117/mormon-church-statement-says-changes-coming-for-local-celebrations-including-pageants.html

Official statement: https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/statement-local-celebrations-pageants-october-2018

Because of the Saints book, a lot of people in the Church are focusing on the question of the Hill Cumorah.

Elizabeth Kane and her husband, General Thomas Kane, were not members of the Church, but they were very friendly to Brigham Young. Gen. Kane helped negotiate peace in the Utah War. 

The Kanes were invited to St. George for a couple of months in 1872.  Elizabeth wrote a memoir of her time in St. George, Utah, from 1872-3 that included a conversation with Brigham Young and others about the Hill Cumorah.

In this account, she relates how Brigham Young told her that when Joseph and Oliver entered the repository the third time, their eyes adjusted to the dim light so they could see all the artifacts.

You can read the typed manuscript here.

https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=328034

Key passages are found on pages 74-5.

It’s also interesting that when she asked where Cumorah was, she was told “in Manchester Township, Ontario County, New York.”

When the book Saints was published, I noted that the term Cumorah had been censored from the text. I attributed this censorship to an effort by Church historians to revise Church history to accommodate their M2C* colleagues.

Recently the editors publicly acknowledged the censorship of Cumorah. In this post we’ll examine their statement.
_____

Many readers prefer short posts, so here are three twitter-length summaries:

1. Saints creates a false narrative present; i.e., characters in the book do not have 1827-1844 ideas about the New York Cumorah that is well established in original sources. 

2. Instead, the characters in Saints know nothing about Cumorah, a reflection of the late 20th century “two Cumorahs” theory created by M2C intellectuals.

3. In responses to criticism, the editors of Saints published an essay that seeks to explain their censorship of Cumorah with a series of inconsistent and counterfactual justifications.

4. The editors of Saints ultimately admit they censored the term Cumorah to “uphold” so-called “neutrality,” a euphemism for accommodating the M2C theory of Book of Mormon geography.
_____

Over a year ago I anticipated this outcome in Saints, which is part of a well-established a pattern by LDS intellectuals to erase the New York Cumorah from the historical record and from the knowledge of members of the Church.**

There is additional related revisionist editing in Saints, such as replacing  terms from original sources (“this continent” and “this country”) with the M2C-approved term “the Americas.” Another problem is the phony 20th century story about Mary Whitmer being shown the plates by Moroni.

For thousands of members of the Church, the censorship of Cumorah has become a serious enough issue that the editors of Saints responded publicly (although they haven’t yet responded  to the other revisionist problems in Saints).

Their response confirmed that they’ve been revising Church history to accommodate M2C.  They now characterized their editorial policy as their effort to “uphold” what they perceive to be “neutrality” regarding Book of Mormon geography, a euphemism for accommodating 20th century theories about two-Cumorahs.
_____

All along, I’ve emphasized that the censorship of Cumorah is an issue of accuracy in Church history, not a question of Book of Mormon geography. 

The New York Cumorah says nothing about where the other events took place. In fact, for decades, Church leaders have consistently taught two things:

1. The hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in New York.
2. We don’t know where the other events took place (i.e., neutrality).

M2C intellectuals (including the historians) confuse members of the Church by conflating these two teachings. What they now characterize as “neutrality” is actually an explicit repudiation of the prophets and apostles, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.

Because M2C contradicts the plain teachings of the prophets and apostles, M2C intellectuals don’t want Church members to know what the prophets and apostles have taught.

Saints is just the latest iteration of this effort.
_____

I emphasize that I greatly admire and respect everyone involved with the Saints project, as well as all the historians and staff responsible for the Joseph Smith Papers, the Church History Library and Museum, and all the other wonderful resources available today. I encourage everyone to learn as much as possible about Church history and to read Saints.

My comments are intended to improve the book and to eliminate the misinformation it contains so that current and future generations will be accurately informed about Church history.
_____

Below, I consider is justification essay in full. As you read it, keep in mind that these are professional, experienced writers who chose their words carefully.

In fact, you might want to read their essay first and see how many logical and factual errors you can find. Then compare your analysis with mine.

https://history.lds.org/content/saints-and-book-of-mormon-geography?lang=eng
_____

Original in blue, my comments in red.

Saints and Book of Mormon Geography
Jed Woodworth and Matt Grow

12 October 2018

Since the publication of Saints, Volume 1: The Standard of Truth, 1815–1846, some concern has been expressed online and to us personally that the text of the book has expressed a preference against a “heartland” model of Book of Mormon geography. 

No doubt they have heard concerns–thousands of Church members are concerned about Saints for many reasons–but “a preference against a “heartland” model is not the point I’ve raised. 

The censorship of Cumorah is a serious problem because it undermines the accuracy of Church history as conveyed in Saints. It creates a false historical narrative as I explain below.

This is not a question of Book of Mormon geography because the New York Cumorah accommodates many models of geography, just as the prophets have taught. The invocation of a “heartland” model in this essay is merely an effort to deflect from the real issue.

We have been disappointed to read online commentary from individuals favoring a “heartland” model of Book of Mormon geography that asserts Saints works in subtle (and even conspiratorial) ways to suppress their views. This is not true.

Again, this does not respond to my concerns because I don’t think Saints suppresses anything other than the truth about Church history. Plus, the censorship of Cumorah is anything but subtle.

Much of the concern has resulted because the word “Cumorah” does not appear in Saints. 

Skillful writers use passive voice this way to disclaim responsibility, as if it’s the word’s fault it doesn’t appear.

As I mentioned above, the censorship of Cumorah is only one of several editorial decisions to revise Church history in Saints. In this essay they avoid the other problems.

This omission has led some to believe that we left out that word in order to speak against a “heartland” model. We assure you that this is simply not the case. 

I readily accept this assurance because it’s irrelevant.

So far, the justification given for censoring Cumorah amounts to a straw man fallacy. A straw man argument is “giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.”

I’ve asserted that the editors of Saints censored Cumorah not to “suppress” or “speak against” a “heartland” model, but to accommodate (make room for) M2C. As you’ll see in a moment, they admit that’s exactly what they did. 

It’s an enormous difference, consistent with the pervasive effort to accommodate M2C by other intellectuals, as I describe in my footnotes below.

We have worked on Saints for many years, Matt as a general editor of Saints and Jed as a review editor of Volume 1. In those capacities, we have read all the draft chapters and editorial comments accompanying these drafts. No one under our observation—writers, editors, external reviewers, General Authority reviewers—has expressed any concern about the word “Cumorah” or articulated any need to expunge it from the record. 

This purported justification for censorship demonstrates exactly the problem I raised about current LDS scholarship.

Notice the wording: no one involved “has expressed any concern about the word “Cumorah.”

How could a term as significant in the history of the Church as “Cumorah” never once come up in a conversation in years of working on Saints?

The obvious answer is that the claim is untrue. 

First, as I’ve shown, the editors had to carefully circumvent Lucy Mack Smith’s quotation of Joseph referring to the hill of Cumorah in 1827 before he even obtained the plates. If there were no “concerns” about Cumorah, there is no excuse for what they did. They quoted a passage that Lucy lined out when she revised her history because her revision included her direct quotation of Joseph referring to Cumorah in 1827.

Second, as we’ll see in a moment, the editors give as an alternative justification specific research they conducted about the term “Cumorah.” If no one ever expressed any concern about the word “Cumorah,” why would they have conducted the research to see when the term was first used?

Let’s assume, alternatively, that the claim is true: no one discussed Cumorah. The censorship happened without anyone discussing the term Cumorah because everyone simply understood the term was not to be used. That, actually, makes sense–but it’s precisely the problem I’ve sought to call attention to.  

The M2C ideology has been deeply imprinted on students at BYU and CES for decades. Consequently, it is highly believable that everyone involved with Saints has incorporated the belief that there are two Cumorahs. An easy way to understand it is they are all inside the M2C bubble. 

If everyone on the team thinks the same way, it is self-evident why no one “articulated any need to expunge it from the record.” Everyone was on the same page. There was no one on the team who even thought to include Cumorah in the book because the idea that Cumorah is in New York is unthinkable to modern LDS intellectuals.

It makes no difference whether this groupthink arose because no one on the team knew what the prophets and apostles have taught, or because they have all rejected what the prophets and apostles have taught. The result is the same: censorship of the term “Cumorah.”

To our knowledge, there have been no discussions about the need to put down one theory of Book of Mormon geography in order to promote another.

This is another expression of the straw man argument we saw above. No one suggested they “put down” a geography theory. The problem is revising Church history to accommodate M2C.

The purpose of Saints is to present a compelling narrative of the faith and sacrifice of early Latter-day Saints, not to weigh in (subtly or otherwise) on the various theories of Book of Mormon geography. 

This is axiomatic, really. That’s why I pointed out the Cumorah issue is one of accuracy in Church history, not a question of Book of Mormon geography. No one expected Saints to “weigh in” on Book of Mormon geography. All we expected was accurate history and characters in an honest narrative present.

We have sought to uphold the Church’s position of neutrality on these theories: “Though there are several plausible hypotheses regarding the geographic locations of Book of Mormon events, the Church takes no official position except that the events occurred in the Americas.”1

Note: This justification contradicts everything they’ve written up to this point. Far from never even discussing Cumorah, now they admit they had an editorial policy to “uphold” what they consider “the Church’s position of neutrality.”

Their objective was not solely or purely to report accurate Church history in a narrative form, after all. 

This editorial agenda reveals that the historians realized that the original documents in Church history actually do have something to say about the geography of the Book of Mormon that, in their view, is not “neutral.” 

Think about this for a moment.


They realized that the teachings of the founding prophets of the restoration about the New York Cumorah contradicted their version of the “position of neutrality” they wanted to “uphold,” so they changed the wording of those documents and censored the term “Cumorah.”

Now you see why this is such a serious problem.
_____

You might wonder, how does “upholding” a policy of “neutrality” justify censoring the term Cumorah?

This iteration of “neutrality” is involved less with geography than with the teachings of the prophets and apostles. The “neutrality” policy, as articulated by the intellectuals, conflates the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah with the teachings of the prophets that we don’t know where the other events took place. 

This is how the intellectuals justify their claim that there are “two Cumorahs.” 

IOW, these historians are “neutral” on the question of whether or not to accept the teachings of the prophets. 

Actually, they’re not even neutral on that. They’ve chosen not to tell readers what the prophets and apostles have taught about Cumorah.

Footnote 1 in their essay cites a Gospel Topics essay that was written by M2C scholars who cite M2C scholars exclusively, with no input from anyone who still supports what the prophets have taught. The Gospel Topics essay reflects the same M2C groupthink that prevailed during the creation of Saints.

For example, if you read the cited Gospel Topics essay, you’ll see it quotes President Ivins’ 1929 Conference address to support the alleged “neutrality” policy. However, the essay does not mention President Ivins’ 1928 Conference address that specifically identifies the New York Cumorah. 

There is no contradiction between President Ivins’ two discourses. He was articulating the well-established teachings that I itemized above; i.e., that Cumorah is in New York but we don’t know for sure where the other events took place.

The M2C scholars (and Saints) conflate the two teachings because they don’t want members of the Church to know what the prophets and apostles have taught.

The preface to Saints explains that the book is a narrative history. Narrative histories are governed by rules, and one of the rules implemented by our writing team is that characters are to live in the “narrative present” and not be burdened by the understanding of later time periods. 

The censorship of Cumorah directly violates this purported rule.

As a matter of historical reality, every character mentioned in Saints shared a belief that the Hill Cumorah was in New York. Letter VII was ubiquitous from 1835 through 1844. The letter that became D&C 128 was well known. 

The editors even admit that, at least as of 1835, the New York Cumorah was commonly accepted. (They know it was published in 1833, but they don’t acknowledge that.) 

However, as presented in Saints, these characters have never heard of Cumorah.

Consequently, contrary to their own rule, the editors have created a deliberately false narrative history. 

The characters in Saints are burdened by the M2C understanding of modern time periods, just like the current generation who is being taught at BYU and CES (and by Saints) that Joseph got the plates from “a hill in New York” but not from Cumorah. 

Our rule states: “The whole story as we understand it will be told, but readers will be following that story scene-by-scene, or even volume-by-volume, as the narrative progresses. If readers desire a broader view of the story or want additional information, extensive footnotes are included, and other in-depth material is available online, including links to essays, videos, and other sources.”

I’ve discussed some of these footnotes here. https://saintsreview.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-saints-footnote-on-cumorah-packers.html. If you read the cited reference, you’ll see it reflects late 20th century ideas.

Good luck to anyone who wants to understand what the prophets and apostles have taught about the New York Cumorah. You won’t find these teachings easily available anywhere in the work of current LDS intellectuals, and the Gospel Topics essay is a good example of how the intellectuals have confused Church members with their selective quotations from President Ivins.

Thus, as Saints tells it, Joseph Smith walks into the “woods,” not the Sacred Grove, in 1820. There he has a “vision” of God and Christ, not the First Vision.2 In the same way, Joseph walks to a “hill” not far from his father’s home, not to the Hill Cumorah.3 

This is another straw man fallacy. No one is saying that Saints should have called the woods the Sacred Grove. Neither Lucy Mack Smith nor Oliver Cowdery, the two major sources cited in the early chapters of Saints, referred to the Sacred Grove or First Vision, but they both explicitly referred to Cumorah as the hill where Joseph got the plates.

Furthermore, Joseph himself identified the hill as Cumorah before he even got the plates. Joseph was present when he, David and Oliver encountered the messenger taking the Harmony plates to Cumorah. Joseph collaborated on Letter VII and had it republished multiple times. Joseph referred to Cumorah explicitly in D&C 128.

Censoring Cumorah creates an explicitly false narrative history for each of these important figures in Saints.

The reason for omitting “Cumorah” is not that the writers wanted to expunge it in order to promote a geographical theory. 

Notice how their excuses have evolved. First, no one even discussed or had a concern about Cumorah. Now they have given several justifications for their censorship, all of which amount to pretexts.

We can easily accept that they didn’t do it “to promote a geographical theory,” because no one has claimed they did. To that extent, this is another straw man fallacy.

However, they’ve already admitted they had an editorial agenda to “uphold” the “position of neutrality.” That’s not technically promoting a theory, but it is definitely revising Church history to accommodate M2C.  

Notice that nowhere in this essay do they ever deny seeking to accommodate M2C.

The reason is that there is no historical evidence that Moroni called the hill “Cumorah” in 1823.

This is a very carefully written sentence. It’s both another straw man fallacy and a deflection.

The straw man is whether or not Moroni called the hill “Cumorah” in 1823. It’s an irrelevant point. Joseph could have learned the term from Moroni at any point between 1823 and 1827.

What is important is that there is historical evidence that in 1827, before he got the plates, Joseph referred to the hill as “Cumorah.” These historians know this, but they word their statement here to deflect from that evidence, without overtly denying it exists. 

Joseph’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, quoted Joseph referring to the hill Cumorah in 1827, in a passage these editors deliberately avoided when they wrote Saints, as I showed here.

From whom could Joseph have learned that term other than Moroni? It doesn’t matter, really; he could have learned it from other angelic messengers or visions that he never mentioned. The point is, Joseph himself referred to the hill as Cumorah at that early date, before he could have read it from the plates which he hadn’t yet obtained.

Therefore, it is not a lack of historical evidence that drove the decision to censor Cumorah. 

The historians relied on Lucy Mack Smith’s history throughout the early chapters of Saints. They also know that Parley P. Pratt reported, in 1831, that he and Oliver Cowdery were teaching that the hill was called Cumorah by Moroni anciently.

Of course, early Latter-day Saints, including Joseph Smith, later called the hill Cumorah, but the best research on the subject puts the term into common circulation no earlier than the mid-1830s.4 

Here is the research they did about the word Cumorah. Remember when they started this list of justifications by claiming no one was ever concerned about the term?

Recall also their claim that they were writing a narrative history, with characters in the “narrative present.” Here they acknowledge the narrative present for early Latter-day Saints included the New York Cumorah, but they’ve deliberately chosen to replace that narrative present with the modern notion of “neutrality” developed by M2C intellectuals in recent decades.

On this point, we will undoubtedly see the same false narrative present in future volumes of Saints. 

Through at least 1990, Church leaders have spoken about the New York Cumorah. The purchase of the hill was a major event in Church history, as explained by President Ivins in 1928. But the editors of Saints will expunge all mention of Cumorah, draining characters in all four volumes of an important part of their reality.
_____

Let’s consider this latest justification based on what was not in “common circulation” until the mid-1830s.

By this standard, Saints should not relate any of the history found in the early chapters of the book, except for what is contained in the brief 1832 history (assuming that does not qualify as mid-1830s). 

Of course, that wouldn’t work; most of their citations in the early chapters of Saints are to records created in the mid-1830s.

Although they don’t tell you, these historians know the hill from which the plates were retrieved was identified openly as Cumorah in January 1833, in The Evening and the Morning Star, about six months after the 1832 history was recorded. 

Is it this six-month period that constitutes the critical dividing time between what is credible Church history and what is not?

If so, Saints needs a lot more revision than I’ve proposed.
_____
Note that the 1832 history does not mention the name of the “angel of the Lord” who came to Joseph Smith, but Saints reports, on p. 22, that “The angel called him by name and introduced himself as Moroni.” 

The name Moroni was not in common circulation earlier than the mid-1830s, when Oliver Cowdery explained the angel’s name was Moroni in Letter IV in 1835, and when verses were added to D&C 27, also in 1835. 

On the same page 22, Saints reports that “the angel wore a seamless white robe,” but that description comes from Oliver Cowdery’s Letter IV, also published in 1835.  

The editors of Saints freely rely on mid-1830s sources (including Oliver’s letters) to support the earlier narratives they approve of. 

That makes their latest justification for censoring Cumorah–“common circulation no earlier than the mid-1830s“–a mere pretext. 

It’s true that Lucy dictated her history after Joseph’s death in 1844, but Saints relies on her history throughout the early chapters because she is considered a reliable eye-witness. As we’ve seen, Lucy’s account has Joseph identifying the hill as Cumorah well before many of the events covered in the first few chapters of Saints. But Saints doesn’t want readers to know that.
_____

Let’s explore this in more detail.

When it’s a topic the editors like, such as Joseph translating the plates by looking at a stone in a hat, they happily cite references from as late as 1879 (cited several times in Chapter 4). 

But when it’s a topic the editors don’t like, such as the term Cumorah, suddenly the very sources they rely on most are not credible. 

Look at the citations in Chapters 3-5. Most of them fall within three categories:

(i) Oliver Cowdery’s letters (1834-5)
(ii) Joseph Smith-History (1838)
(iii) Lucy Mack Smith’s History (1844-5).

Of these, Joseph Smith’s history is the shortest. It’s also the only one that doesn’t explain that the hill Cumorah is in New York, the only one that says it was Nephi who visited Joseph instead of Moroni, etc.

The editors of Saints want us to believe that when they cite President Cowdery’s letters and Lucy Mack Smith’s History, those sources are credible. But those same sources are not credible when they refer to the New York Cumorah because…

They don’t explain why. 

These unpersuasive post hoc rationalizations only make the censorship problem more apparent.

The main historical source concerning events at the hill between 1823 and 1827 comes from the history Joseph Smith began in 1838. There Joseph uses the term “hill,” never “Hill Cumorah.”5 

Recall, in the previous sentence they argued that earlier sources are more credible than later ones (i.e., Cumorah was not in “common circulation” until documents showed up in the mid-1830s). 

Now they’re telling us a later source is more credible than an earlier source.

And what does it mean to say a source is “the main historical source” anyway? The editors did not rely exclusively or even principally on the 1838 history. That history was so sparse that they supplemented it with many other sources–including Oliver Cowdery’s letters and Lucy Mack Smith’s history. 

Joseph’s history never referred to Moroni as the name of the angel. It doesn’t describe his robe as seamless. It lists only a few of the scriptures Moroni quoted. It doesn’t include the dialog between Joseph and Moroni quoted on page 26 of Saints.

All of that information and more comes from Oliver’s letters.

The editors want us to believe they omitted Cumorah because Joseph’s 1838 history is the “main historical source,” even though in Chapter 3 most of their citations were to Oliver’s letters and Lucy Mack Smith’s History, both of which explain the hill where Joseph found the plates was Cumorah.
_____

There’s another problem with this justification. The 1838 history says it was Nephi, not Moroni, who visited Joseph Smith in 1823. If the editors really thought the 1838 history was the “main historical source,” they should have stuck with its Nephi narrative.

But they didn’t.

Why?

Because they know Oliver’s letters and other evidence identifying the angel as Moroni are more credible than the 1838 history. Censoring Cumorah because the word doesn’t appear in the 1838 history is the weakest justification offered so far._____

As senseless as this justification appears, it has a long intellectual genealogy. A standard assertion by the proponents of M2C and the historians who agree with (or accommodate) them is that Oliver Cowdery’s letters are not reliable.

This presents a problem for the producers of Saints because they had to rely on these letters for several important historical details. But since they are justifying their censorship of Cumorah by telling us the letters are not all that important after all, let’s compare them to Joseph’s 1838 history and see why they are cited so often in Saints for everything except Cumorah.

Joseph helped write Oliver’s letters. He referred to them as President Cowdery’s letters (since Oliver was Assistant President of the Church when he wrote letters IV through VIII). 

The letters were copied into Joseph’s own journal as part of his life story. These letters provide more detail about many of the events than Joseph’s 1838 history. 

Oliver’s letters were first published in 1834-5. Joseph’s history was recorded in 1838, but it was not published until 1842, when it was published once in the Times and Seasons.

Between the time when Joseph’s 1838 history was recorded and when it was published in the Times and Seasons, Oliver’s history was republished at least 3 times, at least twice with Joseph’s approval. They were published in the Gospel Reflector, the Times and Seasons, and the Millennial Star, all in 1840-1841. The next year, Joseph’s history was published in the Times and Seasons. Then, in 1844, Joseph’s brother William republished Oliver’s letters again, this time in the New York City paper The Prophet. (Letter VII appeared two days after Joseph’s martrydom.) 

When parts of Joseph’s 1838 history were canonized as Joseph Smith-History, an excerpt from Oliver’s Letter I was included as a footnote.

The historians know all of this history, but they’re confident you don’t, so they don’t address this larger context in this essay.

Saints follows Joseph’s lead.

This sentence is clever rhetoric. Maybe they hope it’s the “take-home” quotation from their essay. But it is contrary to the historical record. 

The record shows us that Joseph led on this issue when he told his mother about the name Cumorah before he even got the plates.

Joseph led by helping Oliver write the eight historical letters, including Letters VII and VIII.

Joseph led by having the letters copied into his personal history.

Joseph led by having them republished multiple times so all the members of the Church in his day could learn Church history. 

Joseph led by writing D&C 128:20.

20 And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed.
_____

Thanks to Saints, current and future generations will have no idea what Joseph Smith, his contemporaries, and his successors as prophets and apostles were referring to when they spoke and wrote about the New York Cumorah.

As our rule states, additional material connected with Saints contains “a broader view of the story.” In the Church History Topics, where the rules of narrative history do not apply, the term “Cumorah” can be found (see topics entitled “Angel Moroni” and “Sacred Grove and Smith Family Farm” at saints.lds.org or on the Gospel Library App).

Of course, this explains nothing about the censorship of Cumorah in Saints. Proper nouns are used throughout Saints. Referring to the name of the hill the way their own sources did would have simplified and clarified, not confused or slowed down, the narrative. 

Furthermore, it would have fulfilled instead of violated the purported narrative rule:  “characters are to live in the “narrative present” and not be burdened by the understanding of later time periods.”

Every single character described or quoted in Saints believed Cumorah was in New York. 

Falsely conveying the impression that people thought the plates were found in a nameless “hill in New York” is not honest history.  

I hope everyone involved with producing Saints will reconsider the censorship of Cumorah and the other revisionist elements designed to “uphold” a concept of “neutrality” on the geography issue.

Censorship and revision of original documents is a matter of Church history, integrity, and clarity. 
_____
Conclusions:

When none of the pretexts given in the essay make sense except one, we are left with the only rational reason given for the censorship of Cumorah; i.e., the editors’ decision to “uphold” their version of “neutrality on Book of Mormon geography.”

IOW, the essay concedes that my criticisms are correct. 

They did not revise Church history to attack any so-called “heartland” model of geography, a claim I didn’t make, but they did revise Church history to accommodate the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs setting in the pursuit of what they think is neutrality.

I consider such revisionism unjustified and unconscionable.

Unless Saints is revised to more accurately teach actual Church history, current and future generations throughout the world will be:

(i) kept ignorant of the teachings of the prophets and apostles about the hill Cumorah and other issues,

(ii) confused by references in both the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, and

(iii) susceptible to critics who use this ignorance and confusion to undermine the faith of members of the Church and to deter investigators.
_____

[1] “Book of Mormon and DNA Studies,” note 6, Gospel Topics, topics.lds.org.

[2] See Saints, volume 1, chapter 2.

[3] See Saints, volume 1, chapters 3 and 4.

[4] See Cameron J. Packer, “A Study of the Hill Cumorah: A Significant Latter-day Saint Landmark in Western New York,” (master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 2002), chapter 3.

[5] This history initially refers to it only as “the place,” but Joseph’s scribe James Mulholland appended a slip of paper to the volume describing “a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood.” The back of the slip of paper explains that he made the addition in consultation with Joseph. See Joseph Smith History, 1838–56, volume A-1, 7 and attached slip, in Karen Lynn Davidson and others, eds., Histories, Volume 1: Joseph Smith Histories, 1832–1844, volume 1 of the Histories series of The Joseph Smith Papers, edited by Dean C. Jessee and others (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2012), 232–33 (draft 2).

Oliver, too, described the hill by its physical attributes in Letter VII. Like Mulholland, Oliver wrote that the hill “is as large, perhaps, as any in that country… I think I am justified in saying that this is the highest hill for some distance round.” 

Mulholland’s note explained ““I mentioned to President Smith that I considered it necessary that an explanation of <​the location of​> the place where the box was deposited would be required in order that the history be satisfactory.” He did not suggest that the name of the place be included.

In light of D&C 128:20 (Joseph’s lead that the historians chose not to follow), is it legitimate to claim that the 1838 history is the lead they should follow, just because Mulholland did not name the hill in that history? Here’s what the essay on the Angel Moroni says as it explains the error in Joseph’s 1838 history:

This reference [to Nephi] likely originated with Joseph Smith’s clerk James Mulholland, who began in 1839 to combine various manuscripts of Joseph Smith’s history into a single narrative. Evidence suggests Mulholland did not take dictation from Joseph Smith but rather worked from sources available to him that have not survived. Mulholland could easily have been confused about the identity of the angel since many of Joseph’s earlier accounts before Mulholland’s draft did not mention the angel’s name.

Since Joseph didn’t dictate the 1838 history, how is it a legitimate excuse for censoring Cumorah from the historical record? 

_____
*M2C is the acronym for the Mesoamerican/Two-Cumorahs theory that teaches the “real” Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is not in New York but instead is somewhere in southern Mexico. M2C is based on the assertion that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were ignorant speculators who misled the Church when they taught that Cumorah was in New York. M2C has been accepted by many LDS intellectuals, and is being taught at BYU and CES.

**Certain LDS intellectuals recognize that the New York Cumorah taught by the prophets and apostles for decades contradicts their M2C theory. While they have long claimed the prophets and apostles are wrong, most members of the Church don’t realize this, and the M2C intellectuals don’t emphasize the point. Instead, they have been carefully erasing the New York Cumorah. Examples of their efforts include:

– The censorship of a critical portion of the Wentworth letter in the lesson manual Teachings of the Presidents of the Church–Joseph Smith, discussed here.
– Manipulating the search engine in the Joseph Smith Papers so a search for “Cumorah” does not produce critical references to the New York site.
– Censoring the David Whitmer account of meeting the messenger who was taking the Harmony plates to Cumorah.
– Creating a display in the North Visitors Center that depicts Mormon abridging the Nephite records from a cave in Mesoamerica, while Moroni is burying the plates off in the distance in New York.
– Creating confusion about the actual teachings of the prophets and apostles by taking certain teachings out of context and censoring teachings about the New York Cumorah (M2C citation cartel, including FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, BYU Studies, etc.).
– Teaching the Book of Mormon at BYU and CES with fantasy maps that depict Cumorah in an area that resembles Mesoamerica and is anything but New York.

Of course, in the Internet age, censorship is a fool’s errand. No matter how much the intellectuals seek to scrub the record of the New York Cumorah, anyone can read Letter VII, the General Conference reports, and all the historical references to the New York Cumorah.

How does it build faith for Church members to be kept ignorant of the teachings of the prophets and apostles?

How will current and future generations react when the first they hear of the New York Cumorah is when critics of the Church make them aware of it?
E.g., http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/cumorah.htm

The real tragedy here is that the extrinsic evidence corroborates the teachings of the prophets, while M2C is based on illusory correspondences that lead people to disbelieve the teachings of the prophets.

Last week on a missionary split here in Africa we visited an awesome man who is investigating the Church and who made some profound statements. Our entire conversation was in French, but I’ll summarize the key points.

The missionaries found this individual by doing door-to-door contacting.

He said he had been interested in religion a long time. He had studied the Bible and gone to several churches. But in his entire life, he had never heard that there is a prophet alive today. He had never heard of the Book of Mormon.

He also said that he thinks there are many people in this country who would be excited to learn about this and who would join the Church.

Then he asked, “Why aren’t you telling people? Why doesn’t the world know?”

I explained that the Elder I was with had come on his mission specifically to tell people about it.

“But I’m just one person who happened to be home when the missionaries knocked on my door. What about the rest of the world? Why aren’t you telling everyone about this?”
_____

I’ve wondered about that question for a long time, but when this investigator posed it, it caused me to reflect some more.

Why does such important information remain unknown to most people on Earth?*

One reason is that members of the Church are reluctant to talk about their beliefs. There are as many reasons as there are individuals, but one common reason is hesitation about the Book of Mormon.

BYU’s fantasy map of the Book of Mormon

There is a lot of confusion about the Book of Mormon among Church members. Current generations have been taught at BYU and CES to think of the Book of Mormon in terms of a fantasy world. Older generations, such as mine, were taught to think of it in terms of Mesoamerica.

Prior generations also considered a variety of alternatives, but they had one common pin in the map: the New York Cumorah. They were united in accepting what the prophets and apostles had taught about the Hill Cumorah in western New York.

Today’s Church members don’t know what to think. 

Do we believe the prophets and apostles? Do we believe the M2C scholars? Do we believe the fantasy maps of CES and BYU?

Is insisting that it doesn’t matter the only option, when obviously it does matter to most people in the world?

This uncertainty has a serious impact on missionary work.
_____

Every missionary knows that one of the most common questions posed by people who are introduced to the Book of Mormon is, “Where did these events take place?”

As it stands right now, missionaries and members can only say, “Somewhere in the Americas, but we don’t know where.”

That is such an implausible response that I’m always amazed when people continue investigating anyway.

Not amazed, really. The Spirit will bear witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon even when people are skeptical about it’s historicity. But skepticism is a serious hurdle, as we can tell from the tiny percentage of people who join the Church and remain faithful.

Worse, of course, is the response our M2C intellectuals advocate; i.e., that the Book of Mormon events took place in Central America. Any investigator with access to the Internet is going to discover in less than five minutes such web pages as this:
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/cumorah.htm.

M2C is not only implausible because it’s based on illusory evidence and confirmation bias, but because it contradicts the teachings of the very prophets and apostles whom the missionaries are encouraging the investigators to accept. Most people will wonder why they should accept the teachings of the prophets and apostles when intellectuals in the Church repudiate them.
_____

Contrast this to the early days of the Church, when Apostles went on their mission to England and converted more people (5,000) than they had copies of the Book of Mormon (3,000). Elder Lorenzo Snow gave a copy of the Book of Mormon to Queen Victoria and Prince Albert in 1841. By 1850, there were more Church members in Britain than in the U.S., even after 7,500 people had emigrated to the U.S. from the U.K.

There are many reasons for this missionary success, but one surely was the way the Apostles grounded the Book of Mormon in the real world. They explained that Cumorah was in New York and that there was plenty of evidence of ancient civilizations in the New World.**

First volume of the Millennial Star

Beginning with the second issue of the Millennial Star in 1840, Parley P. Pratt published President Cowdery’s historical essays under the heading, “A Remarkable Vision.”

You can read a digital copy of Letter VII in the October 1840 issue of the Millennial Star here: https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE8705596

Go to that link and scroll down to record 16, which is page 152, to read about the New York Cumorah.

In response to strong demand for President Cowdery’s letters, early Church leaders in England published a pamphlet that consisted entirely of Oliver’s eight letters.

In Nauvoo, New York City, and Philadelphia, Church newspapers republished Letter VII so everyone, both members and non-members, at least learned about the New York Cumorah.

When he wrote Letter VII, President Cowdery was responding to claims that the Book of Mormon was fiction. He knew the truth because he, Joseph and others had actually visited Mormon’s depository of Nephite records in that hill in New York where Joseph found the plates in Moroni’s stone box. That should have resolved this question long ago.

Imagine how much more effective the message of the Restoration would be if the entire Church were united on accepting the clear, consistent, and persistent teachings of the prophets and apostles about the New York Cumorah. 
_____

*When we lived in Utah, we had the sense that everyone knew about the Church, the Book of Mormon, etc. Everywhere I’ve lived in the U.S. (California, Washington, Arizona, Utah, Illinois, Tennessee, New York) is about the same. Most Americans know at least something about “Mormons” if only from their study of American history and the settlement of the west.

I’ve lived in Europe for 8 years and in Asia for nearly 2 years. Now I live in Africa. I’ve visited 70 countries and every continent, and I’ve worked in a dozen or more countries. Outside the U.S., the story is the same. Few people have heard of Mormons, unless it’s because of polygamy or unless they happen to know a member of the Church. Thanks to the Broadway show, many people in major cities know about the Book of Mormon. But far, far fewer have any idea of the existence of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And almost nobody knows there is a living prophet today. That is changing thanks to media coverage of President Nelson’s visits in many countries, but as he said, he can’t go everywhere. And the message has difficult breaking through.

Right here where we live, we constantly see banners featuring images of religious leaders who are visiting town, holding conferences, selling books, etc. They all profess to represent God in some way, whether they are Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or something else.

**The Pratt brothers, Orson and Parley, often said that the indigenous people throughout Latin America were descendants of Lehi, which led to the widespread adoption of this notion. What most Church members forget is that Joseph Smith edited out those theories when he wrote the Wentworth letter. His declaration in that letter that the remnant of Lehi’s people are the Indians that now (1842) live in this country (the U.S.) should have ended the speculation, but historians and scholars have ignored what he said. In fact, some M2C intellectuals have insisted that when Joseph wrote “this country” he was actually referring to Central America!

Worse, the Correlation Department edited the Wentworth letter to remove Joseph’s identification of the remnant of Lehi’s descendants. Current members of the Church and future generations will never learn what the Prophet Joseph Smith taught on this important topic, solely because of the influence of the M2C intellectuals.

Last week we looked at the M2C claim that the Book of Mormon authors used a Mayan calendar. I pointed out it is an illusory correspondence, like all M2C correspondences.

But actually, it’s not even a correspondence at all.

The M2C “correspondences” are no more real than the black dots in this optical illusion. When you carefully examine them, they vanish.

Illusory black dots

Specifically, we looked at this M2C claim:

We have known for years that Samuel the Lamanite’s four hundred year prophecies in Helaman 13:5, 9 are examples of Mesoamerican (Maya) baktun prophecies. A baktun is 20 katuns, 144,000 days or 400 years. Another clear example of a baktun prophecy is Alma 45:10. Moroni reports baktun history in Mormon 8:6. Then, to erase all doubt about the time reckoning system his culture used, Moroni ends his record by reporting one final katun history Moroni 10:1.

http://bookofmormonresources.blogspot.com/2018/10/5-year-prophecies.html

A reader pointed out that a “baktun” is not 400 years, contrary to the M2C scholarship. It is 144,000 days, which is 394.25 solar years. The entire premise of the “correspondence” is false.

First, there is no “correspondence” between the Book of Mormon authors’ reference to 400 years and Mayan calendar terms or counts.

Second, Book of Mormon authors never prophesied about a period of 394.25 years.

But the Old Testament Hebrews did use 400 years for prophecy.
_____

Which do you think makes more sense?

On the Hebrew hand, we have Book of Mormon time frames identical to Biblical time frames involving Biblical events that Book of Mormon authors actually wrote about.

On the M2C hand, we have Book of Mormon time frames different from Mayan time frames involving Mayan events that Book of Mormon authors never wrote about.

How does anyone fall for these illusory M2C “correspondences” any longer?
_____

More fun: the term “baktun” itself was invented by scholars.

See https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/b%27ak%27tun
_____

Understanding M2C is not a difficult, complex analysis that requires advanced degrees. It’s simply a case of spot the difference.

Why is it so difficult for M2C intellectuals to spot the difference?

Because…

Another awesome post from one of my favorite bloggers is titled Dead Prophets. It’s definitely worth reading if you want to understand the M2C bubble. It’s almost poetic the way it compresses so much M2C doctrine into a short blog post. Unpacking it gives us a great insight into the thought processes that perpetuate M2C.

The post is also a good example of the “quality” filter in operation. (The “quality” filter was described in another post on the same blog, which we discussed yesterday.)

It’s such a classic that I’ll copy it here and provide interlinear comments in case the url gets lost. Original in blue, my comments in red.

Enjoy.
_____

Which “dead prophets” were the people following when they rejected Noah?

Throughout history, most people have found it easier to follow dead prophets than God’s living oracles. 

This is a cliché that may be rhetorically useful sometimes, but in light of the post on “quality” scholarship on the same blog, I’d like to see at least some “quality” evidence of this claim. Everyday experience informs us that most people in the world, especially “throughout history,” haven’t followed, and still don’t follow, either the dead or the living prophets. [We can ask what it means to “follow” a prophet in the first place; e.g., is everyone who does not commit murder “following” Moses’ 10 commandments?]

Among those who follow any prophets or spiritual leaders, what is the evidence that “most people” follow the dead ones but not the living ones? No such evidence is provided here.

The children of Israel struggled to follow Moses, 

Michelangelo’s Moses

What prophets were the children of Israel following when they “struggled to follow” Moses? Setting aside the obvious point that, in fact, the children of Israel did follow Moses out of Egypt, no “dead prophets” I’m aware of taught them to worship a golden calf; certainly no prophet of God.

Many of the unpopular Old Testament prophets taught exactly the same things as their equally unpopular predecessors. Where’s the evidence that the people accepted the teachings of the dead prophets but not the teachings of the living prophets? When the people were wicked, were they accepting the dead prophets? We should have “quality” citations for such a proposition.

Throughout the Book of Mormon, the righteous people kept the law of Moses and followed the living prophets. The wicked did neither. Here’s a useful list of passages that explain how the prophets are rejected: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/prophets-rejection-of?lang=eng. 

In many cases, it was those in power who resented being chastised by the prophets and therefore encouraged the people to reject the prophets.  

but by the time Christ came along, Moses was canonized and the Creator of the Universe had to deal with entrenched Moses mythology because most found it easier to follow the dead prophet than the living bread and water John 7:19, 22-23; John 9:28-29; 3 Nephi 15:2, 4, 8. 

Intellectuals who created “Moses mythology”

 “Moses mythology” was created by the intellectuals of the day, who interpreted the law of Moses and imposed their own rules. The New Testament shows that it was mainly the Jewish scholars and intellectuals, not the ordinary people, who rejected Christ. It was the popularity of Christ among the people that made the intellectuals resent and resist Christ and his message. John 7:31-32. 

For some relevant New Testament verses about Christ’s popularity among the common people, see here. 

The Jewish intellectuals thought they, not the common people, should be the ones who interpreted the scriptures and told everyone else what to think and do.

Notice, the intellectuals in those days also censored opinions that contradicted their own interpretations, just the way the M2C intellectuals at Book of Mormon Central Censor are doing today: “the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue…” John 9:22.

(Of course, this is one of the reasons I find the title of the online journal The Interpreter so beautifully ironic. It’s a member of the M2C citation cartel, publishing the work of M2C scholars presuming to interpret the scriptures for “ordinary” members of the Church; i.e., those without sufficient training for the ministry. I think it’s great for scholars to have a forum to exchange ideas. It’s only their arrogance and censorship that I oppose.)

There’s another important point. For someone to follow the dead prophets but reject the living oracles, there would have to be a difference in teaching between the dead and the living prophets. Did Jeremiah teach something that contradicted Isaiah? Did Malachi say Jeremiah was merely expressing his opinion, which was wrong?

One of the hallmarks of true prophets is consistency. That’s why we still use scriptures written hundreds and thousands of years ago.

Back to the post: what was easier for the people, to follow Christ, or the Mosaic law as interpreted by the scribes and Pharisees? Of course it was easier to follow Christ. That’s why the intellectuals opposed Him. That’s why Christianity expanded throughout the world, while the intellectuals who insisted on their own interpretation of the Mosaic law lost their influence, except over the diminishing numbers of people they could coerce. 

We can each draw our own conclusions about the parallels with M2C today. 

By the time Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805 – 1844) walked the earth, people called him a heretic and blasphemer.

This nonsequitur says nothing. Some people also called Joseph a prophet of God. All around the world, in all religious traditions, there are people described as leaders, heretics and blasphemers.  

You can proof text (selectively cherry pick), misunderstand, or re-arrange the words of a dead prophet and he will never chastise you for misquoting him. 

This is an excellent and revealing explanation, by the Executive Director of Book of Mormon Central Censor, of the technique M2C intellectuals use when censorship fails. 

M2C thrives by censoring the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. When censorship fails and people learn what the prophets actually taught, M2C intellectuals teach them to reject the prophets.

Perhaps the easiest and clearest example is the way the M2C intellectuals reject Letter VII; i.e., although President Cowdery declared it was a fact that the final battles took place in the mile-wide valley west of the hill Cumorah in New York, our M2C intellectuals teach that President Cowdery was merely expressing an opinion–and he was wrong. 

Joseph had Letter VII copied into his personal history and republished multiple times, including by both of his brothers who were editors of their respective newspapers. However, because they think they’re smarter and better informed about the Book of Mormon than Joseph and Oliver, our M2C intellectuals teach that Joseph and Oliver were ignorant speculators who misled the Church about the New York Cumorah. The M2C intellectuals know that they can get away with this because Joseph and Oliver cannot chastise them for misquoting and misrepresenting their teachings.

Over time, powerful traditions build up around a dead prophet because large numbers of people are only exposed to the proof texted, misconstrued, or re-contextualized version of his words. 

This is a nice explanation of the way the M2C intellectuals exploit the academic cycle. You can read all their work and never learn what the prophets have actually taught about the New York Cumorah. 

While the prophets and apostles have consistently and persistently taught that Cumorah is in New York, the M2C intellectuals censor those teachings, paraphrase them, and re-frame them as “the opinions of men.” 

That’s why most members of the Church have no idea what the prophets and apostles have actually taught about the Hill Cumorah in New York–and they’re certainly never going to learn about it from M2C scholars or from Book of Mormon Central Censor.   

People believe these traditions and think they understand the prophet behind the facade. Honest historians come along who challenge these time-honored traditions and people cry foul. How dare modern intellectuals revise the cozy folklore that has built up around a dead prophet of God? 

The lack of specifics makes this passage impossible to assess. It is word salad looks and sounds like sentences, but they mean nothing. This vague rhetoric is a classic straw man fallacy. But let’s think of an example.

One time-honored tradition is the cozy folklore that Joseph learned about Book of Mormon geography from a popular travel book in 1842, which was so impressive that it caused him to rethink everything he had taught up to then. 

As evidence, the M2C intellectuals cite anonymous articles. But here’s where the cozy folklore really takes over.

Not a single one of the anonymous articles relied on by the M2C intellectuals contradicts the unambiguous teaching about the New York Cumorah. 

In fact, Letter VII and its teaching about the New York Cumorah was published in New York City two days after Joseph’s martyrdom by Joseph’s own brother, William. It was ubiquitous among the Latter-day Saints when Joseph wrote the letter that became D&C 128, published in the Times and Seasons just 18 months after Letter VII itself was published in the same paper. 

The cozy M2C folklore arose around the 1920s, when scholars began claiming Cumorah could not be in New York. This tradition is now firmly rooted. The entire edifice of M2C is built on it. Anyone who challenges the tradition is censored. The M2C intellectuals cry foul. 

And now we know, right from the Executive Director of Book of Mormon Central Censor, why the tradition persists.

A living prophet comes along who makes some procedural changes, clarifies points, or teaches something more in step with modern thought and people cringe. How dare the current prophet question the mythology that has built up around one of his dead predecessors?

More word salad that amounts to another straw man fallacy. It’s difficult to think of anything a living prophet has said that “questions the mythology” about “one of his dead predecessors,” apart from the prophets and apostles who have specifically and publicly “questioned” the “mythology” of M2C. Actually, they’ve done more than that. They’ve directly rejected it–including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference. In so doing, they have clarified the points made by their predecessors.


To date, no prophet or apostle has ever repudiated or even questioned the consistent and persistent teachings by their predecessors about the New York Cumorah. Only the M2C intellectuals have done that.

[Joseph Smith’s] contemporaries “knew” what a prophet was supposed to be like, and the very human Joseph did not fit their mental mold. 

This is the subject of Oliver’s Letter II, an essay that I think every member of the Church today should be just as familiar with as were the Latter-day Saints during Joseph’s lifetime. It addresses this exact point, and more familiarity with it would obviate a lot of the problems some people have with their perception of Joseph Smith.

In 2018 we have people who lionize Joseph Smith, proof texting, misrepresenting, and re-formatting his message to suit their pet notions. 

This is an interesting choice of terms. Lionize has a range of definitions, but this sentence gives no guidance to which the author intends. 

What we do have is a group of M2C intellectuals who teach that Joseph was ignorant, confused, and easily manipulated by others, including the travel book. They claim that the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah are “manifestly absurd” because said teachings contradict their pet notions.

No group demonstrates this approach more regularly than Book of Mormon Central Censor. 

Honest historians publish the Joseph Smith Papers and Saints, causing reactionaries among us to conjure up conspiracy theories to explain why certain content was or was not included in these official sources. 

Again, lack of specifics relegates this word salad to a straw man fallacy, leaving nothing to respond to.

There are people who liberally quote Joseph Fielding Smith (1876 – 1972) while they all but ignore the more international, culturally nuanced, scientifically sound teachings of Spencer Woolley Kimball (1895 – 1985), Howard William Hunter (1907 – 1995), Gordon Bitner Hinckley (1910 – 2008), Thomas Spencer Monson (1927 – 2018), and Russell Marion Nelson, Sr. 

More straw man arguments, but since I’ve already raised Cumorah, let’s consider what these prophets have said. None of them have repudiated their predecessors’ teachings about the New York Cumorah, so far as I know. I’ve asked M2C intellectuals for any teachings of any of the prophets and apostles that repudiate the New York Cumorah, but so far, no one has provided any.

Some of the prophets and apostles have referred to people in Latin America as descendants of Lehi, which of course makes sense regardless of where Cumorah is. The Book of Mormon ended around 400 A.D., and the subsequent centuries saw considerable migration and intermarriage throughout the hemisphere. 

The D&C identifies the Lamanites as the Indians living in New York, Ohio, and Missouri. Joseph himself said the remnant of Lehi’s family are the Indians living in this country (the United States). No prophet or apostle has repudiated these teachings, but M2C employees in the Correlation Department did censor Joseph’s teachings from the lesson manual, as we’ve discussed. 

Regarding the New York Cumorah, Presidents Benson, Hinckley and Monson personally and individually signed off on the most recent statement, included in a letter sent in 1990: 

“The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities,  that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.”

The fun thing about the M2C scholars is they reject both the dead and the living prophets!

It has always been so. 

Or not, as we discussed above.

Following a dead prophet does not require one to be humble, obedient, or thoughtful. 

This is news–and an astonishingly arrogant claim. I hope the author retracts at least this statement. As bad as M2C rhetoric is overall, this is an inexcusable assertion that I specifically and emphatically reject.

According to this M2C mindset, millions of Christians around the world today who strive to follow Christ and the other prophets and apostles in the Bible (“dead prophets” in the M2C mindset), as well as their ancestors who did the same for millennia, did not have to be “humble, obedient or thoughtful.”

That’s not only counterfactual, but challenges the very point of Book of Mormon scholarship. If one does not have to be “humble, obedient, or thoughtful” to follow “a dead prophet,” why do we have Book of Mormon scholarship at all? The book is nothing but the teachings of dead prophets. Why do we read the book, if not to follow its precepts?

Oh, wait. Now I see. Sure, Joseph said abiding by the precepts of the Book of Mormon would bring a man closer to God. But Joseph himself is a “dead prophet,” and according to our M2C intellectuals, one needn’t be “thoughtful” to follow Joseph. 

Notice, this M2C mindset is not limited only to Christians. The billions of people who have sought to follow their spiritual leaders, Christian or not, have always sought to be humble, obedient and thoughtful–but not according to our M2C intellectuals. 

People in their hubris can selectively quote, misinterpret, and re-package a dead prophet to fit their pre-conceived ideas of who, what, where, or how they think he should have been.

If we’re focusing on Latter-day Saints, the most prominent and influential people who, in their hubris, are selectively quoting, misinterpreting, and re-packaging the “dead prophets” are the M2C intellectuals who insist the prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah. 

https://twitter.com/ProfFeynman/status/1055118750939299840

_____

M2C intellectuals:

You should, in science, believe authorities, not logic and arguments, carefully drawn.